Mr Reahgan Quartermaine

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Reahgan Quartermaine

Location teacher worked: Berkshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 to 10 January 2025

Outcome type: no order made

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Reahgan Quartermaine, formerly employed in Berkshire, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Reahgan Quartermaine: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reason 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Reahgan Quartermaine TRA reference: 22460 Date of determination: 10 January 2025 Former employer: Waingels College, Berkshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on the 8 to 10 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Reahgan Quartermaine. The panel members were Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Barnsley (teacher panellist) and Mrs Carolyn Roberts (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Eleanor Bullen-Bell of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Callum Heywood of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Quartermaine was present and was represented by Mr Simon Gurney of Lincoln House Chambers. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 11 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Quartermaine was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst he was employed as the Head of Physical Education at the Waingels College: 1. During the 2022 to 2023 academic year, in respect of the OCR Cambridge Nationals Sport Science Unit: R042 and/or Unit: R046, he; a. Failed to store the assessed pupil work securely, allowing one or more pupils to access their assessed work; b. Facilitated and/or allowed one or more pupils to amend their assessed work; c. Provided assistance beyond that permitted by the assessment specification, by providing one or more pupils with: i. Templates; ii. Writing frames; iii. Checklists; iv. Specific feedback on assessed work; v. Access to the teaching materials; 2. His conduct as may be found proven at 1b and/or 1c above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Quartermaine made written admissions of fact prior to the hearing on 12 December 2024. Mr Quartermaine admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). Mr Quartermaine partially admitted allegation 2 in respect of allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv), but disputed allegation 2 in relation to allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v). Regarding the allegations admitted, Mr Quartermaine acknowledged that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the teacher’s representative for the admission of additional documents. The teacher’s bundle of documents comprised his witness statement dated 30 December 2024, character references and feedback from pupils and parents. The presenting officer did not object to the teacher’s representative’s application for the admission of this document. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (‘2020 Procedures’) . Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the teacher’s representative in respect of the application. The teacher’s representative submitted that the documents were relevant to the allegations and no prejudice would be caused by their admission. The panel considered the teacher’s additional documents as relevant to the case and in the interests of a fair hearing to be admitted. Accordingly, these documents were added to the bundle. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 7; • Section 2: Notice of hearing and statement of agreed and disputed facts – pages 9 to 24; • Section 3: TRA witness evidence – pages 26 to 517; • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 519 to 805; and • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 807 to 808. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 6 • The teacher’s witness statement – pages 809 to 824; and • The teacher’s character references and feedback from pupils and parents – pages 825 to 894. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents with in the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses: • Witness A – [REDACTED] • Witness B – [REDACTED] • Reahgan Quartermaine – the teacher. Decision and reason The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The following sequence of events were established: Mr Quartermaine commenced employment at Waingels College (‘the School’) in September 2004. Mr Quartermaine was promoted to Head of Physical Education in 2015. An initial meeting was held with Mr Quartermaine in September 2022, where the [REDACTED], Witness B, and the [REDACTED]of the School communicated the need for the pupils taking the Cambridge Nationals in Sports Science and Sports Studies, which was externally moderated by the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA exam board (‘OCR’), to achieve a level 2 pass qualification. In October 2022, Mr Quartermaine was instructed to begin teaching on unit s R042 and R046 of the Cambridge Nationals in Sports Science and Sports Studies. Between 6 to 8 January 2023, Mr Quartermaine undertook the initial marking of the pupils’ assessed coursework for units R042 and R046. Between 9 to 15 January 2023, Mr Quartermaine invited pupils to amend their assessed coursework for units R042 and R046. On 15 and 16 January 2023, Mr Quartermaine uploaded the pupils’ assessed work for units R042 and R046 to the OCR repository. 7 On 23 January 2023, a referral to the joint council for qualifications (‘JCQ’) was made by the School. Mr Quartermaine was advised of the referral and an internal investigation began. On 6 February 2023, the School submitted a report to JCQ on its investigation. On 3 March 2023, the OCR indicated that further information was required and instructed the School to undertake a further investigation. On 8 March 2023, the JCQ received the School’s second report. On 27 March 2023, the OCR indicated that further clarification of the conduct undertaken by Mr Quartermaine wa s required and directed the School to undertake further investigation. The School submitted a third report to the JCQ on 30 March 2023. In April 2023, Mr Quartermaine formally resigns from the School and began new employment as Head of Physical Education at another school. On 14 April 2023, the OCR declines to accept submissions of the cohort for units R042 and R046 and a malpractice committee meeting was scheduled for 21 June 2023. On 5 September 2023, a referral was made to the TRA by the OCR. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. During the 2022 to 2023 academic year, in respect of the OCR Cambridge Nationals Sport Science Unit: R042 and/or Unit: R046, you; a. Failed to store the assessed pupil work securely, allowing one or more pupils to access their assessed work; The panel considered Mr Quartermaine’s statement of agreed and disputed facts and written statement, where he admitted that although he had transferred the pupils’ assessed work to a password protected area of Google Classroom, the formal assessments also remained freely accessible via Google Classroom after the submission deadline. The panel noted that this allowed pupils to amend their assessed work. The panel also considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness A, who stated that it was identified in the investigation that candidate work had been stored on a Google Classroom server and had remained accessible to pupils after the submission of marks. He stated that this therefore did not meet the assessment specification as the work was not secure and would appear to have been freely accessible. 8 The panel concluded that, based on the evidence available, Mr Quartermaine failed to store the assessed pupil work securely, allowing pupils the opportunity to access their assessed work. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 1(a) proven. b. Facilitated and/or allowed one or more pupils to amend their assessed work; The panel considered the oral evidence, statement of agreed and disputed facts , and written statement of Mr Quartermaine where he admitted that he encouraged and allowed 8 pupils to amend their assessed work after the School’s submission deadline of 10 January 2023, but before he made the final submission of the units to the OCR Repository. The panel also considered the contemporaneous statements of pupils gathered by the School in January to March 2023. The panel noted the following comments in particular in relation to the amendment of work after the School’s submission deadline: • ‘I’m pretty sure I was asked to improve a certain area of the coursework after.’ • ‘I looked over it and made adjustments to the areas that could be improved’. • ‘we was asked to improve the work to get a higher grade.’ • ‘we were given feedback on a sheet it told us the mark scheme of each part of the coursework [and] some of it was highlighted to show what we could do to improve.’ • ‘we had another 24 to 48 hours to add to our work to improve it one last time before it got sent in to the examiners.’ • ‘before work was handed in Mr [Quartermaine] bumped marks for people up with only a few days to try and get that pass mark he had given us.’ • ‘He sent to the examiners I got a level 2 distinction which I clearly didn’t get and in two days I had to get my coursework up to that level before the coursework gets sent off.’ • ‘He said he would submit my mark as a distinction even though I only had a merit then I had to make the marks up in 48 hours.’ • ‘After the final deadline we were given the chance by Mr [Quartermaine] to do some more work before it was submitted.’ • ‘Mr Quartermaine asked me to improve my work and read through my work and told me to improve certain areas of my coursework that wasn’t really specific.’ 9 Witness A’s written evidence also highlighted that it was identified during the investigation, following admissions from Mr Quartermaine, that he had invited 10 candidates to make amendments to their assessed work after the deadline for submission and after formal submission of the marks he had awarded. He stated that the investigation suggested that only 8 candidates went onto make amendments to their assessed work. Witness A submitted that the investigation also provided evidence showing that candidates received specific feedback both prior to submission and then by email following the submission of final marks but before the conclusion of the moderation process. Witness A stated that, during this time, some candidates were invited by Mr Quartermaine to amend their submitted course work, giving them the opportunity to ensure it was consistent with the marks already awarded by Mr Quartermaine. The panel also considered the comparison copies of pupils’ coursework that were amended after the submission deadline in the bundle. The panel considered that these demonstrated examples of the amendments that had been made to improve pupils’ assessed coursework. Based on the evidence available, the panel found that Mr Quartermaine had facilitated and allowed 8 pupils to amend their assessed work. The panel therefore found allegation 1(b) proven. c. Provided assistance beyond that permitted by the assessment specification, by providing one or more pupils with: i. Templates; ii. Writing frames; iii. Checklists; iv. Specific feedback on assessed work; v. Access to the teaching materials; The panel considered the oral evidence, statement of agreed and disputed facts , and written statement of Mr Quartermaine where he admitted to providing templates, writing frames, checklists, specific feedback on assessed work and access to teaching materials (including model answers, exemplar work and WAGOLL answers (‘what a good one looks like’) on Google Classroom). The panel also noted Mr Quartermaine’s concession during the OCR’s investigation that this material likely remained accessible during periods of live assessment. The panel noted the OCR’s specification for this course. In particular the panel noted the following: ‘[t]he advice provided prior to final submission should only enable the learner to 10 take the initiative in making amendments, rather than detailing what amendments should be made. This means that teachers must not provide templates, model answers or detail specifically what amendments should be made.’ The panel noted Mr Quartermaine’s ‘ Roadmap to Success 2021- 2023’ written document which confirmed his intentions to provide templates, checklists, literacy scaffolding, structure, WAGOLL answers, Google Classroom resources and personalised feedback. The panel also considered the ‘ Head of Subject Handbook 2022- 2023’ partially prepared by Mr Quartermaine (as Head of Physical Education) which referenced the use of writing frames, templates, WAGOLL answers and formats for presenting work for pupils on this OCR course. When considering the written evidence, the panel noted the checklist for unit R042 and the template for unit R046, both of which were provided to this cohort of pupils. The panel also noted the individual feedback sheets provided to pupils in November 2022 for a series of work for units R042 and R046 to assist pupils in improving their assessed coursework. The panel also considered the specific feedback sent via email to this cohort on the 9 January 2023. The panel also noted Mr Quartermaine’s oral admission to actively assist the pupils by providing specific feedback in [REDACTED]. The panel considered the statements of pupils gathered by the School. In addition to the comments above, the panel noted the following comments in particular: • ‘before we started the coursework we was told about the subject and information. We also have help sheets and example coursework on google classroom.’ • ‘they gave us marks on our coursework and then given a way on how we could improve it.’ • ‘feedback on what I could improve verbally, email, google classroom’ • ‘we also got feedback sheets’. • ‘I read through the help I was given and added bits to my work based on the areas they said to improve on.’ • ‘Mr [Quartermaine] send us [an] email with what we need to improve.’ • ‘help on google classroom such as past pieces of work’. In addition, the panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness A, who stated that during the course of the investigation it was identified that pupils had continued access to the teaching materials which included exemplar work and sentence starters. He stated that the investigation also revealed that pupils had received specific 11 feedback both prior to submission and then by email following the submission of final marks but before the conclusion of the moderation process, during which time the pupil s were invited by Mr Quartermaine to amend their submitted assessed coursework. The panel therefore found the particulars of allegation 1(c) proven. 2. Your conduct as may be found proven at 1b and/or 1c above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. The panel considered the oral evidence, statement of agreed and disputed facts, and written statement of Mr Quartermaine where he admitted that his conduct was both dishonest and lacked integrity for allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv). The panel considered whether Mr Quartermaine had failed to act with integrity in respect of these admitted allegations . The panel considered the case of Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority and was mindful that professionals are not expected to be “paragons of virtue”. Regarding allegation 1(b), the panel considered that Mr Quartermaine was allowing pupils to change their assessments to improve their marks, and had therefore compromised the integrity of the formal coursework assessment process. In considering this allegation the panel noted Mr Quartermaine’s trusted and senior role as well as his advanced skills teacher qualification. The panel also noted that Mr Quartermaine’s position meant he would be seen as a role model by junior teachers. Given Mr Quartermaine’s experience, the panel was satisfied that Mr Quartermaine had acted deliberately in contravention of the OCR specification and guidance, which in turn amounted to a clear failure to act within the higher standards expected of a teacher. In relation to allegation 1(c)(iv), although the panel was mindful that professionals are not expected to be “paragons of virtue”, the panel noted that Mr Quartermain should have been aware of the parameters of the assessment specification as a teacher delivering and assessing the course. The panel was satisfied that Mr Quartermaine had failed to act within the higher standards expected of a teacher in respect of the conduct found proven at allegation 1(c)(iv). The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Quartermaine’s conduct for allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv), as found proven, lacked integrity. The panel then considered whether Mr Quartermaine had acted dishonestly in relation to allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv). In reaching its decision on this, the panel considered the two- part dishonesty test in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockford. The panel firstly sought to ascertain the actual state of Mr Quartermaine’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. 12 The panel accepted Mr Quartermaine’s oral evidence and written submission that he accepted and knew his actions under allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv) were dishonest at the time. The panel concluded that Mr Quartermaine had proactively and knowingly helped students, given them feedback and allowed them to edit their work after the submission deadline. Having determined Mr Quartermaine’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, the panel considered that the actions of Mr Quartermain e had been dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people. The panel concluded that, by the objective standards of ordinary decent people, providing specific feedback on pupils' assessed work contrary to the OCR specification and allowing them to amend and improve their coursework after the submission deadline would be viewed as dishonest. For allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv), the panel concluded that Mr Quartermaine had satisfied the subjective and objective elements of the dishonesty test from the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockford. In respect of allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv), the panel therefore found allegation 2 proven. Turning to allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v), which Mr Quartermaine disputed in relation to allegation 2, the panel firstly considered whether Mr Quartermaine had failed to act with integrity. The panel again noted Mr Quartermaine’s trusted and senior role as Head of Physical Education alongside his advanced skills teacher qualification. The panel drew particular attention to Mr Quartermaine’s lack of professional curiosity into the OCR specification in light of the Teachers’ Standards by reference to Part 1 (in particular by reference to standards 6 and 8) . The panel considered that Mr Quartermaine should have taken responsibility for his own professional development. The panel concluded that he should have made enquiries to ensure he was adhering to the specification and properly understood the delivery and assessment of the course, rather than assuming these levels of assistance were permitted. The panel concluded that this amounted to a clear failure to act within the higher professional standards expected of a teacher. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Quartermaine’s conduct for allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v), as found proven, lacked integrity. The panel then considered whether Mr Quartermaine had acted dishonestly in relation to allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v). In reaching its decision on this, the panel considered the dishonesty test in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockford. The panel sought to ascertain the actual state of Mr Quartermaine’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The panel was aware that the reasonableness or otherwise of his belief was a matter of evidence going to whether he held the belief, but it was not an additional 13 requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question was whether it was genuinely held. The panel accepted Mr Quartermaine’s oral evidence and written submissions that he was not aware that these actions were prohibited by the OCR specification. The panel accepted that Mr Quartermaine was applying what he understood to be good teaching and learning practices. The panel accepted that this belief was therefore genuinely held by Mr Quartermaine. The panel further considered that Mr Quartermaine had been open and transparent with providing these levels of assistance with [REDACTED] at the School. The panel noted that before offering these levels of assistance, Mr Quartermaine had shared his 'Roadmap to Success 2021- 2023' document, which outlined these levels of assistance, with both [REDACTED] at the S chool. The panel also noted Witness B’s oral evidence, who stated that these materials “all sounded like good things to support” at the time and that they were “good learning and support practices”. The panel noted Mr Quartermaine’s oral and written submissions that this document was not challenged by the senior leadership team at the time. The panel accepted Mr Quartermaine’s evidence that he was not deliberately being dishonest, and his professional judgement was clouded by substantial pressure from [REDACTED] at the time. The panel noted the exam analysis meeting notes from September 2022. The panel also reviewed various other written evidence in the bundle. The panel concluded that this evidence demonstrated numerous references to Mr Quartermaine’s target of achieving a level 2 qualification for every pupil in this cohort. Having heard all of the available evidence, the panel found that Mr Quartermaine was under significant pressure at the time from the senior leadership team, which impacted upon his behaviour and professional curiosity at the time. Mr Quartermaine had been set a target for these pupils to attain a level 2 qualification and throughout October 2022 to January 2023 his desire and ultimate goal was to get the best results for these pupils. In light of the above, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that it was not Mr Quartermaine’s intention to deceive or to be dishonest as he did not appreciate or understand that he was providing prohibited levels of assistance when supplying the students with the information detailed in allegation 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v). The panel therefore found the dishonesty element of allegation 2 not proven in respect of allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v). 14 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as ‘the Advice’. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Quartermaine, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that , by reference to Part 2, Mr Quartermaine was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour within and outside school. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel reviewed the oral evidence, the statement of agreed and disputed facts, and the written statement of Mr Quartermaine, in which he acknowledged that his admitted conduct constituted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Quartermaine amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel also considered whether Mr Quartermaine’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The panel found that none of these offences were relevant. Whilst the panel found that Mr Quartermaine’s conduct for allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv) were dishonest, it did not consider that his conduct amounted to serious dishonesty. The panel received legal advice as to the possibility of findings being cumulated in accordance with guidance given in the judgment of Schodlok v General Medical Council. However, as the panel concluded that each of the allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2 based on the particulars found proved in respect of each allegation, amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, the panel did not need to determine whether it would be appropriate to cumulate any of those allegations. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Quartermaine was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel was mindful of its finding that Mr Quartermaine’s conduct at allegations 1(b) and 1(c)(iv) was dishonest and that his conduct at allegations 1(b) and 1(c) lacked integrity. The panel appreciated that these were both serious matters. 15 The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel also considered the influential role that Mr Quartermaine could have on junior teachers as a head of department and line manager. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. The panel therefore found that Mr Quartermaine’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the facts of allega tions 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proved and the particulars of allegation 2 partially proved, the panel further found that Mr Quartermaine’s conduct in respect of the proved allegations amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the p anel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may brin g the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the p anel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a p rohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a p rohibition order should be made, the p anel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. The panel was aware that prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have a punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct; and • that prohibition strikes the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest, if they are in conflict. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Quartermaine, which involved failing to secure pupils’ assessed work, facilitating and allowing pupils to amend their assessed work after the submission deadline, providing assistance beyond that permitted by the assessment 16 specification by providing pupils with (i) templates; (ii) writing frames; (iii) checklists; (iv) specific feedback on assessed work; and (v) access to teaching materials, there was a strong public interest consideration in declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Quartermaine was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Quartermaine was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel decided that there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator and he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession. The panel accepted and gave considerable weight to the body of character evidence submitted by Mr Quartermaine: Firstly the panel considered the letter from his [REDACTED], Individual C ([REDACTED]): • “I find Mr Quartermaine a patient, supportive, reflective, transparent and organised leader and these allegations came as a huge shock to me, when he shared them. His personality creates a calm learning climate for all whilst being motivated with high expectations; he has demonstrated these qualities to both staff and students. He shows clear engagement and includes all in his planning; his subject knowledge and professionalism is a real strength.” • “Mr Quartermaine is a credit to the teaching profession. He has been proactive in engaging in the creation of our fitness and performance centre for staff and students to enjoy, and he has been instrumental in coaching many school teams, outside of his working hours, in major football tournaments such as the FA Elite Schools Cup. I believe him to be a fundamentally honest and conscientious teacher who holds the needs of his students at the heart of what he does. To prohibit him from continuing to teach would be a serious loss to the profession.” In addition, the panel considered Individual D letter (who was Mr Quartermaine’s [REDACTED]: • “The allegations have come as a huge shock to me. […] Mr Quartermaine himself was recognised as an outstanding teacher who always led by example.” • “His professional conduct, work ethic and practice were of the highest standard and amongst the very best. I could always rely on him to be efficient and effective in all 17 aspects of his leadership. In his practice, he constantly had the best interest of his students and staff at heart.” • “If Mr Quartermaine were to be prohibited from teaching, I believe that it would be a significant loss to the profession and would adversely affect numerous students, both present and in the future. Such is his undeniable outstanding practice, leadership and example. Mr Quartermaine is a credit to the teaching profession. It is imperative that he remains a member, so that he can continue to make the significant impact that he always has done.” The panel also took account of Individual E letter [REDACTED]: “[…] the considerable pressures placed on teachers, especially those with subject department responsibilities by parents, politicians and senior leaders in education to make or exceed examination targets. These pressures, combined with the otherwise laudable desire to see individual pupils achieve their goals, can lead otherwise excellent teachers to make wrong decisions. I believe this to be the case in respect of Reahgan’s regrettable actions.” The panel also considered the large number of positive handwritten endorsements from pupils, colleagues and parents commending Mr Quartermaine’s teaching. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Quartermaine. The panel was mindful of the need to strike the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of , and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Quartermaine. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and profes sional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • dishonesty or a lack of integrity […]; • deliberate action in serious contravention of requirements for the conduct of an examination or assessment leading to an externally awarded qualification or national assessment […] particularly where the action had, or realistically had the potential to have, a significant impact on the outcome of the examination assessment; and • knowingly manipulating a school’s […] data to benefit and/or enhance a school’s […] exam results. 18 Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. Based on all of the evidence available, the panel considered there was in sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr Quartermaine’s actions were not deliberate for allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c)(vi). However, the panel accepted Mr Quartermaine’s evidence that he was not deliberately intending to deceive in respect of allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v), and his judgement was clouded by significant professional pressures placed on him by the senior leadership team of the School following the exam analysis meeti ng in September 2022. There was no evidence that Mr Quartermaine was acting under extreme duress. However, the panel recognised the unusual and unexpected circumstances that Mr Quartermaine had been placed in by [REDACTED] in September 2022, leading to his rash decision making and misconduct between October 2022 to January 2023. The panel again accepted the substantial pressure that Mr Quartermaine was under following the exam analysis meeting in September 2022. The panel noted that the pressure applied by the senior leadership team [REDACTED] for Mr Quartermaine. The panel noted that, aside from the incident in this matter, Mr Quartermaine demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct. Mr Quartermaine’s oral submissions and written statement highlighted his clear passion for teaching and devotion to the profession. The panel acknowledged Mr Quartermaine's accomplishments and qualifications, including his advanced skills teacher certification in 2012, his contributions to CPD within the community and beyond his department, his moderator training for EdExcel PE GCSE, c ommendations from OFSTED inspectors, a nomination for a Pearson Award, his invitation to endorse a book on middle leadership , and the substantial character evidence attached to his written statement. Following the investigations, the panel noted Mr Quartermaine’s unwavering commitment to adhere to and exhibit the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel paid significant attention to Mr Quartermaine’s noteworthy and substantial efforts to develop and upskill himself on professional ethics. The panel also noted Mr Quartermaine’s statement that he had undertaken a “ long period of self - development and soul searching”. The panel concluded that Mr Quartermaine has undertaken extensive remediation and is committed to continuing to develop his professional development and others within the teaching profession. Although the panel considered Mr Quartermaine’s behaviour to have been enormously disruptive to the School, the pupils and their parents, it noted that Mr Quartermaine 19 understood this impact and that this was an isolated incident that was limited to a short space of time. The panel was conscious that the wider context cannot be underestimated, and noted that Mr Quartermaine has enhanced his ability to seek help. The Panel found that Mr Quartermaine has a more effective support network at his current school compared to what he had at the School at the time, should he face similar pressures again. The panel considered that Mr Quartermaine showed substantial insight and remorse in his oral evidence and written statement which was supported by his character references. The panel noted that Mr Quartermaine had been open and transparent during the School’s internal investigations and the investigation undertaken by the OCR. The panel witnessed Mr Quartermaine’s remorseful and reflective attitude when he spoke about his actions in his oral evidence. The panel found Mr Quartermaine’s apologetic oral submissions compelling. Mr Quartermaine made clear that he was ashamed and embarrassed by his actions and how it consumes him with “sadness and regret” every day. The panel accepted that Mr Quartermaine recognised the negative impact that his actions had on the School and his pupils. Mr Quartermaine accepted that, with hindsight, he should have taken a step back from the situation and informed his line manager of realistic expectations for the cohort . The panel was satisfied that Mr Quartermaine would recognise similar issues in the future and be able to ask for support to avoid a situation like this arising again. The panel therefore identified that there was unlikely to be a risk of repetition as it was confident that Mr Quartermaine had genuinely learnt from his actions. The panel particularly noted that Mr Quartermaine had a previously unblemished disciplinary record, and this was a n isolated series of events that took place over a short period of three months due to substantial pressure from the School. The panel then considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. With the case of Wallace v Secretary of State for Education in mind, the panel critically considered proportionality. The panel considered Witness A's oral evidence, noting that Mr Quartermaine's conduct was at the " bottom end" of the scale. The panel accepted that, regarding allegations 1(c)(i) to (iii) and (v), Mr Quartermaine believed he was implementing effective learning and teaching practices and adhering to the School's standard procedures. The panel further noted that his suggestions to help this cohort achieve a level 2 pass were not challenged by the senior leadership team. The panel concluded that t he misconduct, although serious, fell at the very lower end of the scale of severity. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate 20 response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel was of the view that prohibition was not proportionate and publication of the adverse findings was a less intrusive measure available without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objectives in relation to public confidence and standards. The panel also drew particular attention to the fact that Mr Quartermaine was prohibited from involvement in OCR qualifications for a period of two years. The panel accepted that the OCR’s sanction and this period of suspension, coupled with the publication of the adverse findings by the TRA, was an appropriate sanction and, therefore, a sufficient sanction to uphold public confidence in the profession. Taking all of the circumstances into account, the panel decided that the public interest considerations weighed in favour of retaining Mr Quartermaine in the profession and against prohibition. The fact that Mr Quartermaine has continued working as a teacher throughout these proceedings and undertaken substantial professional development was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Mr Quartermaine has been honest and transparent with his current employer about the nature of these proceedings and [REDACTED] spoke about him in glowing terms in her character reference. The panel also noted the feedback from examination board moderators and the fact he had undergone significant training and development. The panel considered that prohibition would not produce any material change or serve any useful purpose in the circumstances. The panel considered that Mr Quartermaine could continue to make a valuable contribution to the teaching profession. The panel concluded that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of sanction. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Reahgan Quartermaine is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour within and outside school. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Quartermaine fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include the maladministration of teacher assessments, including allowing pupils to amend assessed work. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Quartermaine, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. 22 In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel does not record any evidence that Mr Quartermaine’s behaviour had a direct detrimental impact on the wellbeing of his students. However, it does note that the consequences of his actions were “enormously disruptive” to pupils. A prohibition order would remove the risk of a repetition of such a disruption. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel considered that Mr Quartermaine showed substantial insight and remorse in his oral evidence and written statement which was supported by his character references.” The panel goes on to record the following: “The panel witnessed Mr Quartermaine’s remorseful and reflective attitude when he spoke about his actions in his oral evidence. The panel found Mr Quartermaine’s apologetic oral submissions compelling. Mr Quartermaine made clear that he was ashamed and embarrassed by his actions and how it consumes him with “sadness and regret” every day. The panel accepted that Mr Quartermaine recognised the negative impact that his actions had on the School and his pupils.” The panel also states that: “Mr Quartermaine accepted that, with hindsight, he should have taken a step back from the situation and informed his line manager of realistic expectations for the cohort. The panel was satisfied that Mr Quartermaine would recognise similar issues in the future and be able to ask for support to avoid a situation like this arising again. The panel therefore identified that there was unlikely to be a risk of repetition as it was confident that Mr Quartermaine had genuinely learnt from his actions.” In my judgement, the evidence attesting to Mr Quartermaine’s remorse and insight means that I agree with the panel that there is a limited risk of the repetition of this behaviour. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observes that: “The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. ” I am also conscious that behaviour such as Mr Quartermaine’s may have a negative impact on public confidence in the examination and assessment system. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a 23 failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Quartermaine himself. The panel notes having had the benefit of seeing extensive character evidence attesting to his abilities as a teacher and his commitment to his pupils. The panel also makes the following comment: “The panel decided that there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator and he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Quartermaine from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the significant degree of insight or remorse that Mr Quartermaine has demonstrated and the limited risk of repetition. I have also noted the panel’s comments regarding the specific circumstances surrounding these events, which while not excusing his behaviour, suggest that it is not representative of his general approach as a teacher. Finally, I have noted the evidence of Mr Quartermaine’s commitment and abilities as a teacher and the contribution that he can make to the education sector in the future. I have also noted and given weight to the panel’s concluding remarks: “Taking all of the circumstances into account, the panel decided that the public interest considerations weighed in favour of retaining Mr Quartermaine in the profession and against prohibition. The fact that Mr Quartermaine has continued working as a teacher throughout these proceedings and undertaken substantial professional development was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Mr Quartermaine has been honest and transparent with his current employer about the nature of these proceedings and [REDACTED] spoke about him in glowing terms in her character reference. The panel also noted the feedback from examination board moderators and the fact he had undergone significant training and development. The panel considered that prohibition would not produce any material change or serve any useful purpose in the circumstances. The panel considered that Mr Quartermaine could continue to make a valuable contribution to the teaching profession.” 24 For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I agree with the panel that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 15 January 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.